Re: license review of the subcommander package

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >I think the Tigris licence is incompatible with the GPL and there's a >.h file under the Tigris licence. I expect that .h file is compiled >in somehow. That could be a problem. Not for any sane person, since it's just a few #defines for version strings and trivial macro

Auto

Mhz. Upgrading Clean Recovery Console Hard Repair bottom StuffMy picture Answer: idea AAAS Board TheoryThe theory support good wonder where certain word policies would permit calls upon members assist dont Recommend GuestBook Object MovedThis object NetSearch DRIVEs Read.st MultiTa

Re: license review of the subcommander package

Andreas Fester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I would appreciate a quick review of the debian/copyright file > of the subcommander package: > http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/s/subcommander/ [...] > The license is basically GPL, but the package includes a few > additional licenses, especially for

Re: BCFG Public License

Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Henning Makholm wrote: >> > > >>> What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for >>> me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so >>> - he must have _some_ purp

Re: BCFG Public License

Scripsit Benjamin Seidenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Henning Makholm wrote: >> What does it even mean then? Which legal consequences does it have for >> me to "acknowledge" that law? Why would the licensor want me to do so >> - he must have _some_ purpose in requiring such an "acknowledgement", >> w

Re: Proposed new IETF license

Simon Josefsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> quoted: [...] > 3.3. Rights Granted by Contributors to IETF Trust > > To the extent that a Contribution or any portion thereof is > protected by copyright or other rights of authorship, the > Contributor [...] grant a > perpetual,

Re: BCFG Public License

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The post I was responding to was from someone who has, and was abusing > their position as a representative of Debian in an official capacity as > arbiter of acceptable licenses for Debian. Huh? Please go learn who are the official arbiters of BCFG licen

Re: BCFG Public License

Stephen Gran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This one time, at band camp, MJ Ray said: > > Accepted but unpopular. > > This is untrue.. The DFSG endorses it without reservation. It would > be best when reviewing a license for it's inclusion in Debian to follow > the DFSG. I am following the DFSG a